DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST

INTRODUCTION
The dynamic penetrometers were originally designed in order to obtain qualitative
and quantitative data on the resistance to penetration of the soil and in particular to
determine the compactness of cohesionless soil which are usually difficult to sample. It is
a rapid and cost effective method of soil investigation. The compact nature of the dynamic
probing rig offers great advantages over conventional boring (drilling and probing rigs).
Useful investigation data not obtained by other investigation methods can be measured in
difficult set-up position using dynamic cone probing test.
Dynamic probing measures a single parameter, the blow count during driving and
does not produce any samples for visual examination. Hence, It is particularly suitable
for rapid determination of borders between layers exhibiting varying shear strength and
may be used as a preliminary investigation technique in order to assist in determining the
most useful locations for more sophisticated investigation methods. It can also be used as
a part of a large investigation program, providing relatively cheap infill information
between boreholes or other test positions. DCPT results could be used to directly design
load capacity of driven piles and shallow foundations.
There are a few researches concerned with the interpretation of the DCPT
measurements. On the other hand, there are many theoretical and field correlations have
been established to build a link between DCPT measurements and another well-known
penetration test measurements (such as SPT, CPT), this link could be utilized in the
assessment of soil parameters using DCPT measurements. SPT has a wide known
interpretation for its measurements and well-established relation between its dynamic
penetration resistance and strength characteristics of cohesionless such as relative density,
which consider as an important parameter to be measured in cohesionless soils because it
provides information about sand condition. Such condition could not be measured in
laboratory because it is difficult to obtain undisturbed samples. Therefore, the link
between DCPT and SPT will be advantageous and will make the interpretation of DCPT
measurements available.
CONCEPT OF DCPT
The DCPT essentially consists of determining a driving resistance profile for a solid
cone being driven into the soil by means of regular blows from a hammer of constant
mass dropped freely through a constant distance on to an anvil at the top of rods
connected to the cone. The penetration resistance is defined as the number of blows
required to drive the penetrometer a defined distance into the ground. DCPT is mainly
used in cohesionless soils. In cohesive soils and soils at great depth (more than 25.00 m),
caution has to be taken in interpreting the test results because of the build up of a
significant friction along the extension rods.
 DCPT is composed of four essential elements as shown in Figure (1).
1- The hammer: it has generally a free fall with weight and height of fall is specified
according to various standards.
2- The anvil: it receives, then, transmits the force of blow to the rods and cone. It has
sometimes a damping cushion and a fixed, or friction, connection with the
extensions rods.
3- The extension rods: It transmits the force of blow to the cone. Its weight per meter
and size (diameter) are specified according to various standards. The extension
rods must be straight and its material has to have high resistance to wear.
4- The cone: The type of cone depends on apex angle, size, and cone diameter to rod
diameter ratio.

Figure 1 : Schematic conception of a dynamic penetrometer

Because of the simplicity of the test equipment and the basic shape of DCPT
equipment is almost constant, there are a number of different sizes of DCPT equipment in
use to suit different soil conditions. The basis that has been adopted for classifying DCPT
equipment is the theoretical specific energy of blow, E t.
 Et = M.g.H
A
Where:
M : mass of hammer.
A : area of cone.
H : height of fall.
g: acceleration of gravity.
More details about types and sizes of DCPT equipment will be discussed later.
According to different standards of test procedure, the number of blows required to
drive the penetrometer a distance of 10 or 20 cm are defined as N10 or N20 respectively.
Nevertheless, Nd, where (d) is the driving distance in cm, cannot be a significant
characteristic of dynamic probing, because it is influenced by many factors such as the
impact energy, the driving rate, the diameter and enlargement of the cone, and the
striking mass to struck mass ratio, So, the results of different DCPT equipment can be
presented and compared to each other's through the calculation of the dynamic point
resistance.

Calculation of Dynamic Point Resistance (qd or rd)

The dynamic point resistance is the amount of energy spent to drive a unit area of
the cone into the soil for a unit displacement of depth. It is considered a significant
characteristic of dynamic probing because it provides a quantitative description of the
tested soil by recording the energy spent throughout the test. Ultimately this amount of
energy is related to ground properties.
This resistance is usually evaluated by the use of driving formula; the most common
one is the Duch formula where the dynamic point resistance is denoted by q d.

Where:
M : mass of the hammer.
M’ : total mass of the extension rods, the anvil, and the guiding rods.
E : average penetration per below.
A : cross section area of the cone.
g: acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/sec2).
H : hammer drop height.
 The ratio M/(M+M') is a correction factor for the increase of struck mass of test
equipment with depth. It ranges between 0.8 and 0.4 for depth ranging between 0.0 and
30.0 m. The use of this correction factor gives qd values comparable to the point resistance
of static cone penetration test.
On the other hand, if the ratio M/(M+M') is not taken into account the dynamic point
resistance will denote by rd.

STANDARDIZATION OF DCPT
Because of the simplicity of test equipment, there are a great variety of dynamic
probing sizes in use to suit different soil conditions. Therefore, the problem of
standardization is very difficult. The need to standardization is raised up in order to
permit comparability of test results from different investigations. Terzaghi and Peck
(1967) adopted the mass of hammer as a basis for classifying dynamic probing equipment.
In this manner it has been possible to reduce the large number of different sized
equipment to four types as shown in Table (1), together with their usual symbols. The
German standard (DIN) of DCPT was introduced originally in 1964 and is widely quoted
in other countries. Table (2) contains outline information from the DIN standard 4094 and
Table (3) contains outline information from the British standard as proposed by
Department of transport (1987). Egyptian standard of DCPT was quoted from DIN
standard, which has six categories of DCPT as shown in Table (2). Egyptian standard use
only three categories (LR10, MRSA, SRS15) of DIN standard and called them respectively
(Light, Medium, Heavy). Table (4) contains outline information the Egyptian standard.
Dynamic probing recommended four different probing methods, DPL, DPM, DPH and
DPSH to fit different soils condition and various purposed of investigation. Technical data
for four methods are summarized in Table (5). The cone point for all types must conform
to the specifications shown in Figure (2).
1- Dynamic Probing Light (DPL)
DPL represents the lower end of the mass range of dynamic penetrometers used
worldwide; investigation depth usually is not larger than about 8.0 m if reliable results
are to be obtained. The specific energy per blew (50 kj/m2).
2- Dynamic Probing Medium (DPM)
DPM represents the medium mass range of dynamic penetrometcrs; investigation
depth usually is not larger than about 20.0 m. The specific energy per blew (150 kj/m ).
3- Dynamic Probing Heavy (DPH)
DPH represents the very heavy mass range of dynamic penetrometers; the
investigation depth usually is not larger about 25.00 m. The specific energy per blew (167
kj/m2).
4- Dynamic Probing Super Heavy (DPSH)
DPSH represents the upper end of the mass range of dynamic penetrometers and
simulates closely the dimensions of the SPT; investigation depth can be larger than 25.00
m. The specific energy per blew (283 kj/m2).

Figure (2) : Scheme of cones and rods

Table (1) : Classification of dynamic probing equipment

Type Symbol Mass of hammer

(Kg)
Light DPL 10
Medium DPM >10-<40
Heavy DPH  40 -  60
Super heavy DPSH >60
 Table (2) : Outline particulars of DIN 4094 Penetrometer
Apparatus Hammer Drop Guide Cone
rod
type Code No. (Kg) (mm) And anvil Diameter Area
(Kg) (mm) (mm2)
Light- LR5 10 500 6 25.2 500
Weight
LR10 35.6 1000
Me MRSA 30 200 6 35.6 1000
dium
weight MRSB 500 18
Heavy- SRS10 50 500 15 35.6 1000
weight
SRS15 43.7 1500

Table (3) Outline particulars for British Standardization of dynamic probing

equipment

Symbol Hammer Drop Guide rod Rod outer Cone

(mm) And anvil diameter
(kg) Diameter Area (mm2)
(Kg) (mm)
(mm)
DPH 50 500 18 35 43.7 1500
DPSH 63.5 750 30 35 50.5 2000

Table (4) Outline particulars for Egyptian Standardization of dynamic probing

equipment

Penetrometer Hammer Drop Cone

Type (mm)
(kg) Diameter Area
(mm)
(cm2)
Light 10 500 35.6 10
Medium 30 200 35.6 10
Heavy 50 500 43.7 15
 Table (5) Technical Data of the DCPT equipment
Factor DPL DPM DPH DPSH

Hammer mass, kg 10 ± 0.1 30 ± 0.3 50 ± 0.5 63.5 ± 0.5

height of fall, m 0.5 ± 0.01 0.5 ± 0.01 0.5 ± 0.01 0.75 ± 0.02
Mass of anvil and 6 18 18 30
guide rod (max), kg
Hammer length to 1D2 1D2 1D2 1D2
diameter (D) ratio
Diameter of anvil, cm 10<d<0.5D 10<d<0.5D 10<d<0.5D 10<d<0.5D
Rod length, m 1 ± 0.1 % 1-2 ±0.1 % 1-2 ±0.1 % 1-2 ±0.1 %
Max mass of rod, kg\m 3 6 6 8
Rod deviation (max), 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
first 5.00 m, (%)
Rod deviation (max), 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
below 5.00 m, (%)
Rod OD, mm 22 ± 0.2 32 ± 0.3 32 ± 0.3 32 ± 0.3
Rod ID, mm 6 ± 0.2 9 ± 0.2 9 ± 0.2 -
Apex angle, deg 90 90 90 90

Nominal area of cone 10 10 15 20

cm2
Cone diameter, new, 35.7 ± 0.3 35.7 ± 0.3 43.7 ± 0.3 50.5 ± 0.5
mm
Cone diameter (min), 34 34 42 49
worn, mm
Mantel length of cone, 35.7 ± 0.1 35.7 ± 0.1 43.7 ± 1 50.5 ± 2
mm
Cone taper angle, 11 11 11 11
upper, Deg.
Length of cone tip, mm. 19.7 ± 0.1 19.7 ± 0.1 21.9 ± 0.1 25.3 ± 0.4
Max wear of cone tip 3 3 4 5
Length, mm
Number. of blows/cm 10 cm; N10 10 cm; N10 10 cm; N10 20 cm; N20
penetration
Standard range of 3 - 50 3 - 50 3 - 50 5 - 100
blows
Specific work per 50 150 167 238
blow; Mgh/A, kj /m2
References :
• Institution of civil Engineers, “penetration testing in the UK”, Thomas Telford,

London, 1989.

• Sang Lerat, G., Olivari, G. and Cambou, B., “practical Problems in Soil Mechanics and

Foundation Engineering”, two volumes, Elsevier, 1984, 1985.

• Second European Symposium,, “penetration testing”, Balkema, 1982.

• Sanglerat, G., “The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration”, Elsevier, 1972.